[Steve Kohler]

In the GCA world, “naturalism” or “minimalism” might be used as descriptors of the last 25 years of prevailing design philosophy.  We’ve seen some spectacular new courses built in this style and many older courses renovated to this aesthetic.  By my anecdotal observations, the renovation business is brisk for courses seeking refreshers to emulate the standard of “as-it-originally-was”.
 
Is there a coming inflection point (or has it already happened) where tastes shift away from this philosophy to something new?  It is much documented how courses like Harbour Town or Sand Hills helped usher in a new era of design thinking.  Perhaps it’s a recycle of past eras’ principles or something completely new.  Is there anything out there today in the GCA world that might suggest a similar shift is coming?

[Ally Mcintosh]

Steve,


This has been discussed quite a bit on here. Common sense says there is and there will be but I’m not so sure how all encompassing it will be.


If we think about it, the golden age was just a culmination of 40-50 years of maturing thought on GCA. It wasn’t a new aesthetic, more a new school of thought (strategic) married with more skill in designing and building with nature in mind. I don’t think any courses beforehand had deliberately been artificial in look.


Then the market died for a decade or two.


Then post-war builds did change both the look and school of thought, again with “natural looking” not being the prevalent driver behind a design. After a few decades, we found ourselves back in the renaissance / 2nd golden age.


So for me, there has only been one period in golf course history where the vast majority of golf courses were almost deliberately artificial in look. And that came about in many ways from a post-war rebirth when most of the golden agers had passed on around the same time.


Will a complete u-turn happen again? With so many young architects coming up with the minimalist / natural aesthetic, it will only come about if one or two of those decide to do something completely different to differentiate themselves and be successful enough that others see it as the new way.


Bound to happen in some form. But for how long and how all encompassing, who knows.

[Tom_Doak]

Styles change, but somebody has to create something great to change the perception of what's popular and cause others to follow.


Rob Collins thinks he's doing that -- time will tell.  Jim Engh thought he was, too.


The hard thing to fight about minimalism is that the numbers work.     Maximalism only makes sense for larger markets.

[Peter Pallotta]

Steve -
I think we tend to look at this question too narrowly, and from an architect's perspective, ie as if a next-generation creativity and new design ideas & approaches will catch on and create the next popular style. I think the likelihood is the other way around: it is the next major demographic shift that will drive a meaningful change, ie who the next big wave of golfers will be, and what'll be most important to them golf-wise, and how & where they will want to spend their money, and how much of it will they have to spend -- all of that is what architects will be *responding to*, not what they will be dictating. And it is in those responses -- ie in the most successful of them -- that we'll find the next prevailing taste and popular aesthetic. I think.

[Tom_Doak]

Steve -
I think the likelihood is the other way around: it is the next major demographic shift that will drive a meaningful change, ie who the next big wave of golfers will be, and what'll be most important to them golf-wise, and how & where they will want to spend their money, and how much of it will they have to spend -- all of that is what architects will be *responding to*, not what they will be dictating. And it is in those responses -- ie in the most successful of them -- that we'll find the next prevailing taste and popular aesthetic. I think.

Maybe.  But don't forget that younger architects are part of that demographic, too, so it's possible that our tastes just line up well with our generation.  I certainly never thought much about trying to build what other people would like, other than dropping the baggage of making courses "testing" and trying to make them fun, instead.  But that was my own taste, too.


As for the aesthetic, I have built courses in a lot of different styles, but I am not surprised which of them has proven to be the most popular.

[Peter Pallotta]

That's a good point, Tom, and you're probably right, ie instead of 'responding to' the better term might be 'tapping into'. That said, in the complex interplay involved, I think the subjective tapping into must somehow be informed/refined by a broader & more objective sense of the 'possibilities' of any given time & place, demographic and otherwise. I mean, the alternative would've been, in your case, 'an idea ahead of its time' -- and that certainly wouldn't have proven very successful.

[Tom_Doak]

Oh, I've done ideas that were ahead of their time, too - like the fescue fairways and greens at High Pointe in 1988.


As you say, being ahead of time rarely pays off for clients.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Our taste at Wolf Point was to have the guys shape everything as natural as possible.
When a veteran of the golf business visited before we grassed anything, they were very disoriented as they couldn't tell where anything was - tees (especially), greens, fairways... we almost located the greens and tees after shaping, we knew about where they were but not exactly.


The most different aspect/part/section I've seen was what Tom did with the tees at Sebonack. How natural and landscaped they were designed. Not minimalism, but natural looking. Awesome.


Peace

[Garland Bayley]

When and if medal play is seen as a detriment, and the pencil pushers are no longer in vogue, we may see a new revolution in design.

[Thomas Dai]

Surely lots of inter-linked factors come into play especially when the terrain/climates are less than ideal?
Impact of construction technology - men with handtools, men/horses with scoops, dredgers, dynamite, steam shovels, bulldozers, 360's, sandpro's etc etc.
And maintenance - sheep, scythes, early/later hand mowers, horse/tractor gang-mowers, ride-on mowers/bunker rakers etc.
Drainage, greens in hollows, on humps, pipework etc
Irrigation, just greens, hoses/pipework, centre-line fairway irrigation (fairway width, trees), expansive irrigation, control systems etc etc
Etc, etc, etc, etc .......
If an amazing design can't be built or maintained then will it ever happen or if it does happen will it last for long before being abandoned?
atb

[Sean_A]

I don't think aesthetics will change much if at all. Courses are already covering a wide avenue of styles. I think what golfers think of as golf will shift. There will be more fit as many holes as you can courses, efficient design using less space and short courses. Not saying this shift will dominate the market, but it will become more acceptable and may even find a stand alone market. That is, these places existing on their own instead of as a resort add on.

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

I don't think aesthetics will change much if at all. Courses are already covering a wide avenue of styles. I think what golfers think of as golf will shift. There will be more fit as many holes as you can courses, efficient design using less space and short courses. Not saying this shift will dominate the market, but it will become more acceptable and may even find a stand alone market. That is, these places existing on their own instead of as a resort add on.

Ciao

I think this is a reasonable projection. I agree.

[Ira Fishman]

My golfing “career” divides pretty neatly into two eras. From roughly 1970 when I first started playing until 1993 when we had our first child and then from roughly 2005 until now. In the first era, difficulty was in vogue, and a five plus hour round was common in the US. I was not particularly good, but like my peers, I embraced those norms. During the second period, forced carries and narrow fairways were out, and the ground game and width were in as were fast play.


We can say that Sand Hills and particularly Bandon transformed golf course architecture because they represented a return to the Golden Age. But the Golden Age courses were plenty difficult for their times, and many of them still are.


To Peter’s point about demographics, I wonder how much our embrace of the new Golden Age is a function of (a) golfers who older such that the ground game is a welcome benefit (b) golfers who have enough disposable income to travel to the Bandons let alone GB&I and Australia (c) the relatively lower cost of flying, and (d) people perceiving that they are busier so that long rounds are not tolerable.


For the younger generations of golfers, some or all of those variables my change which could impact predominant design philosophy.


And there is one more important factor: the next generation of architects may want to “resist” the leaders of the new Golden Age in the same dynamic that shaped the post WWII generation.


Ira

[Mike_Young]

IMHO there was a concerted effort to make design something it wasn't right after WW2.  A lot of bad stuff was built by architects telling clubs/clients what they needed and not what they wanted and it was done in the name of salesmanship.  I'm convinced there were many archies during this period with a LOFT problem..(Lack Of F***king Talent) and a lack of passion for what they were doing. Some just ended up in the business.  Today guys have to really want to do it. I think the young guys today doing design/build definitely have a passion and talent and I'm convinced that talented restraint will outweigh showitn that you can do flips on a dozer.

BUT we are also at a point where consultants, (and I don't mean architectural consultants for now) are advising club boards etc in a way that could jepardize the club but make the consultant plenty. 
I presently know of a club with a gullible board who has had the same consulting company for 12 years.  Over that time almost 14 million has been borrowed with 10 million still being owed.  Membership is down to about half of the voting members it had in 2007 and the consultant keeps feeding them the new cool thing of "being more of a family club" firepit, family bar type of deal.  Next thing I know the magazine owned by the consulting company has named the prez something like "prestigious club prez of the year".  Once these types of companies get the bit in the mouth of these clubs it is $$$$$...   And so my theory is that there will be "changing taste in GCA" mainly because the ones in charge who don't know what they don't know are sold a bill of goods based on future member and not exisitng member.  We are in a time where so many of our clubs are in a position of the member being there for the club instead of the club being there for the member.  JMO

[Tim Martin]

Without any consideration as to the future of minimalism, courses will continue to promote “playability” and “fun for all.” The ship has sailed on harder is better and David Kidd learned a lesson that benefited many of his contemporaries that were paying attention.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()